| Your local tourism bureau
is probably a marketing agency supported in part by bed taxes,
a line item in the city's general fund, and perhaps membership
fees -- or a combination of all three.
The same holds for state-level tourism programs, where the typical
agency is a multimillion-dollar firm devoted primarily to marketing
your commonwealth worldwide. Certainly there are different versions:
some well-financed, others neglected; some fully state agencies,
others more privately held; some that focus on international sales,
others preferring to concentrate locally; some that are public
relations firms and that's all, a few that dabble in capacity
building and product development. In general, though, the mission
of most local and statewide 'tourism' organizations
is to attract more people to the region, and that's what
their budgets support. I certainly don't begrudge those
organizations their advertising dollars, and many should have
more.
It's welcome news that some state tourism budgets, like
California's, have increased significantly in the past few
years alone: millions of dollars available to research the spending
and staying habits of tourists, provide supplemental support to
local agencies, and investigate the best and most cost-effective
promotional strategies: the web? travel magazines? fulfillment
packages? partnerships? television ads? Bottom line: there's
a lot of time, money, and smarts that go into developing promotional
campaigns, but where is the equivalent investment in the products,
the very things the advertisers sell? Tourism today is far too
important and influential to be thought of as a marketing responsibility
only.
There is one sector of the industry that does a great deal of
R&D for product development -- the private sector. Corporations
building hotels, golf courses, shopping malls, casinos, theme
parks, and similar doodads conduct significant research and line
up well-heeled investors, and they are sometimes eligible for
tax breaks and other public 'incentives.' Distinguished by a for-profit
motive, these niches are among the most influential voices around
the table at local and state strategy sessions, and, through their
lobbying associations, with elected officials. For place-based
tourism, on the other hand, product development tends to be the
responsibility of nonprofit organizations such as history museums
and environmental groups, public agencies like your city's historic
preservation or recreation department, or the grossly underfunded
federal park and land-management agencies. These groups usually
occupy at best token seats around many tourism planning tables,
even though history or nature may be the area's main attraction,
and their relations with politicians are often more sociable than
effective. Consequently, funding schemes that support place-based
product development are typically distinguished by the following:
· Lack of Funds: It goes without saying that few of these
programs have enough staff or funding to fulfill their missions,
let alone provide sufficient resources for additional community
projects. Arts, history, parks, humanities, and preservation budgets
are often considered 'frills,' their funding generally
remains level at best from decade to decade, and their appropriations
are almost always under attack from certain quarters. The wonderful
exceptions should be the norm.
· Silo Funding: Product development funding, such as
it is, is scattered across a variety of local, state, and federal
agencies, as well as foundations and corporations, whose very
policies tend to exacerbate 'silo thinking,' rather
than a more integrated interpretation of place. You might be able
to raise money for an arts project, but try to weave historic
preservation or city design into the application. That's
another agency or a different grant category.
· Tourism Nada: Product funding usually has no direct
connection to tourism. In fact, when applying to some agencies
don't even mention your community wants to preserve a historic
building, for example, to support the local hospitality agenda.
Purists who view tourism as a crude commercial exploitation of
the historic site might score your application lower.
· Rural Challenges: What private funding exists from
foundations and corporations, especially six-figure gifts, typically
serves large metropolitan institutions, rarely finding its way
to a rural arts group, preservation society, or history museum.
Likewise, if you operate a modest cultural center in a small town,
the chances of securing a large federal grant -- or even being
able to complete the paperwork -- are slim.
· Projects! Projects! Most awards are intended for projects,
not staff, capacity building, maintenance, or other necessary
day-to-day operations. Civic tourism is about a community moving
forward together—its built, cultural, and natural actors—with
a new region-wide vision for place-based development. It's
about the necessary infrastructure, not simply another heritage
trail or museum exhibit, as welcome as they might be.
· Not Dependable: Regardless of source, almost all product
funding is episodic, coming and going at the whim of city councils,
legislatures, Congress, and foundation boards of directors. Most
support is generally tied to grants, which can never be depended
on from one year to the next.
Missing here is a long-term, concerted, tourism-centric effort,
similar to the approach to marketing, that helps communities build
capacity to play the tourism game, offers assistance to support
citizen inquiries into the relationship between place and tourism,
and, significantly, provides funds to improve and maintain existing
products as well as develop new ones.
Local and state tourism agencies can make any museum look good
in a website or fancy promotional magazine, but what happens when
visitors show up on Saturday and there's a sign pinned to the
door that says, 'Hours: Tues. & Thurs. 1–4 PM'? Are
they likely to return?
Or I've stumbled upon several versions of this note: 'If you'd
like to see the museum, go to the 7-11 and ask for Marge. She
has the key.' Other times the site is open, but it's staffed with
volunteers -- well-meaning people whose commitment you treasure,
but who often have no museum experience, and the place feels like
grandma's attic: a buffalo head here, an old sewing machine there
(circa 1883, the label says), a painting of somebody I don't know.
I drop a few dollars in the donation box on the way out, but I
have no sense of what this community's story is or why people
are proud to call it home. And still we hear that 'cultural heritage'
is a tourism priority. I leave the museum and drive to a trailhead
I used to know, but a gated community that creeps halfway up the
hillside blocks access to the mountain. And still we hear that
'nature' is a tourism priority. I drive out of town through miles
of placelessness, 'a low-grade uniform environment,' forecast
Lewis Mumford in the 1960s, 'from which escape is impossible,'
a clutter of commercial crap unhealthy to the eyes, lungs, and
pocketbook. And still we hear that 'sense of place' is a tourism
priority.
If your city and state can appropriate tens of millions of dollars
for tourism promotion, why isn't there an equivalent program
that invests in 'sense of place' for tourism development,
which is both an economic and quality of life asset? It's
sadly ironic, for example, that development stunts ramrodded through
city councils and legislatures by the growth industry allow towns
to apply for public funds to build golf courses and theme parks,
but not to improve their local museum for tourism. I'm not
suggesting we simply throw money at cultural institutions so they
can create new projects. Place-based tourism funding programs
should:
· Mandate Partnerships: Collaboration between the heritage
community, tourism industry, government agencies, and citizen
associations should be factored into all programs, so the community
moves forward together with one voice, one agenda -- so the entire
community is thought of as a heritage destination, not just the
museum. In other words, funding programs should be designed to
encourage 'place committees' and similar inclusive, citizen-driven
units. Support activities should further ecological thinking,
so tourism is positioned as an essential component of community
planning.
· Build Capacity: Funding mechanisms should build in
ample planning up front, so communities are prepared to act responsibly
and productively. Programs could require local teams to complete
capacity-building training before the community is eligible to
apply for implementation support. Many of the conceptual challenges
outlined here, i.e., involving the public, interpreting the story,
and uncovering place, should be reviewed in the training sessions.
· Sustain Success. Assistance programs should be designed
to meet the specific needs of communities, not to enforce a standardized
format for place-making, and they should cover multiyear cycles
so as to avoid the funding spasms that typically occur. The financial
support might not be sufficient, but most towns can depend on
a certain level of local and state funding for tourism marketing.
The same should be true for product development.
· Measure Results: Programs should mandate and provide
funds to complete outcome measurements, in order to evaluate economic,
environmental, and social results—that is, a triple-bottom-line
report. Funding agencies should require that interim and final
reports are shared in public meetings.
There's simply no excuse for allocating dollars to advertising
and pennies to product, and there are even fewer excuses for tourism
officials to stonewall appropriations for place-based product
development, when these funding programs, such as the pioneering
efforts in Connecticut and Iowa, provide travel bureaus better
attractions to market. Often marketing agencies see a finite pie,
where every dollar allocated to product is a dollar not available
for promotion. Some cities and counties, for example, are experimenting
with setting aside a portion of bed taxes for parks and museums,
a move unfortunately blocked by some business interests, which
is short-sighted, ineffectual, and self-defeating. The focus should
be on expanding the pie, not scrapping over a few slices, and
investing in product helps grow that pie in two ways: First, the
hospitality industry's goodwill helps keeps the place sector
and general public in its corner, organizations and people who
can assist with advocacy and product development. Also, numerous
surveys and research indicate that a quality heritage product
prompts visitors to stay longer (typically a half-day), return,
and tell others about the experience. Those extra stays and visits,
from guests known to spend more, supplement bed taxes and other
tourism revenues, a percentage of which eventually ends up in
marketing programs.
Thankfully, states, counties, and cities are beginning to recognize
the logic of investing in the story -- the very products and experiences
that provide a sense of belonging for tourists, not to mention
community assets for residents. These resource programs look different
in different places—some managed by a tourism agency, others
conducted by an arts or humanities council, several headquartered
in parks, historical societies, and government economic development
sectors.
No doubt your citizen committee will encounter political and
turf battles, as well as philosophical disputes, when you attempt
to establish a similar investment strategy, whether local or statewide,
but the reality is you probably can do this. Study the advocacy
schemes and funding structures of places where it is working,
several of which are described in the Applications; marshal economic
development and quality of life arguments, either from this essay,
the referenced publications, or websites such as Cultural Heritage
Tourism; identify champions on your city council and in your legislature,
by appealing to both the economic and place-enhancing benefits
of a responsible tourism ethic; build grassroots support among
the business community, the media, cultural sectors, hospitality
allies, and residents by framing the conversation as a public
good and a public responsibility; and, through museum associations
and other networks, reach across city and county boundaries to
other communities engaged in the same work to build regional and
statewide affiliations that can carry the message. And be tenacious.
|
